Information

Semantics for the Agentic Web
  • Past
  • Confirmed
  • Breakout Sessions

Meeting

Event details

Date:
Japan Standard Time
Status:
Confirmed
Location:
Floor 4 - 401
Participants:
Ugur Acar, Martin Alvarez-Espinar, Christian Biesinger, Arnar Birgisson, Tim Cappalli, Pierre-Antoine Champin, RYO CHINEN, Andrew Dekker, Wei Ding, Zahra Ebadi Ansaroudi, Mark Foltz, Chris Fredrickson, Mason Freed, Keith Freeman, Matt Garrish, Ariella Gilmore, Masao Goho, Sam Goto, Michael Gower, Becca Gray, Shirisha Gubba, Chris Harrelson, Tatsuya HAYASHI, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Johann Hofmann, Wenson Hsieh, Ningxin Hu, Lu Huang, Jasper Hugo, Tatsuya Igarashi, Jan Jaeschke, Nic Jansma, Jesse Jurman, Eiji Kitamura, Rob Kochman, Ege Korkan, Leo Lee, Vladimir Levin, Simon Lewis, Christian Liebel, Stephen McGruer, Penelope McLachlan, Daniel Montalvo, Yuichi Morioka, Yuki Morota, Nour Nabil, James Nurthen, Yusuke Oyama, Vinod Panicker, dheeraj pannala, Mayur patil, Daniel Pelegero, Abrar Rahman Protyasha, Chris Pryor, Sushanth Rajasankar, Ruoxi Ran, Andrew Rayskiy, Ashwany Rayu, Wendy Reid, Matthew Reynolds, Leonard Rosenthol, Vincent Scheib, Amir Sharif, Ali Spivak, Jennifer Strickland, Andreas Tai, Phillis Tang, Sameer Tare, James Teh, Kunihiko Toumura, Vasilii Trofimchuk, Kouhei Ueno, Simeon Vincent, Andrew Wafaa, Yoav Weiss, Michael Wilson, Pavan Yanamadala, Dexter Yang, Lei Zhao
Big meeting:
TPAC 2025 (Calendar)

The concept of an "agentic web," where AI agents act on a user's behalf, is a growing topic of discussion. Currently, these agents often rely on brittle inference, parsing visual labels or class names to understand a website's functionality. This model is fragile; simple A/B tests or site redesigns can break an agent, leading to high task failure rates. Keeping in mind that for many tasks the acceptable failure rate is 0. This model can also be compute-expensive, as many implementations resolve ambiguities using a combination of DOM Tree and pixel scraping, greatly limiting the performance of agents who might have resource constrained (i.e. on-device) models.

For human-facing assistive technologies, ARIA closed gaps in semantic HTML, creating a more robust experience for users of AT. Now, we face a similar question for machines.

This session is a general discussion to explore whether our existing semantic toolkit is sufficient for this potential use case.

  • Is ARIA, which is designed for human accessibility, the right tool to serve machine agents? An interesting point of reference is this FAQ from ChatGPT which states "ChatGPT Atlas uses ARIA tags—the same labels and roles that support screen readers—to interpret page structure and interactive elements."
  • What happens when we conflate these two distinct purposes?
  • More importantly, are there semantic needs for agents that have no human-facing equivalent?

Consider hints that could improve agent reliability and safety, such as:

  • Explicitly flagging a button as a destructive action (e.g., distinguishing "Archive" from "Delete Permanently").
  • Identifying page content as User-Generated Content (UGC) to allow agents to apply extra safeguards.
  • Signaling transient states, like logged-in vs. logged-out status, to help an agent plan a task.

This session is not about a specific proposal. It's about the core problem. Does ARIA already solve for all the hints a machine might need, or should we be considering an additional semantic layer for machines at all?

Let's come together to discuss the problem, the risks of both action and inaction, and the potential paths forwards.

Additional co-chair (if registered): @chrishtr

Agenda

Chairs:
Penelope McLachlan

Description:
The concept of an "agentic web," where AI agents act on a user's behalf, is a growing topic of discussion. Currently, these agents often rely on brittle inference, parsing visual labels or class names to understand a website's functionality. This model is fragile; simple A/B tests or site redesigns can break an agent, leading to high task failure rates. Keeping in mind that for many tasks the acceptable failure rate is 0. This model can also be compute-expensive, as many implementations resolve ambiguities using a combination of DOM Tree and pixel scraping, greatly limiting the performance of agents who might have resource constrained (i.e. on-device) models.

For human-facing assistive technologies, ARIA closed gaps in semantic HTML, creating a more robust experience for users of AT. Now, we face a similar question for machines.

This session is a general discussion to explore whether our existing semantic toolkit is sufficient for this potential use case.

  • Is ARIA, which is designed for human accessibility, the right tool to serve machine agents? An interesting point of reference is this FAQ from ChatGPT which states "ChatGPT Atlas uses ARIA tags—the same labels and roles that support screen readers—to interpret page structure and interactive elements."
  • What happens when we conflate these two distinct purposes?
  • More importantly, are there semantic needs for agents that have no human-facing equivalent?

Consider hints that could improve agent reliability and safety, such as:

  • Explicitly flagging a button as a destructive action (e.g., distinguishing "Archive" from "Delete Permanently").
  • Identifying page content as User-Generated Content (UGC) to allow agents to apply extra safeguards.
  • Signaling transient states, like logged-in vs. logged-out status, to help an agent plan a task.

This session is not about a specific proposal. It's about the core problem. Does ARIA already solve for all the hints a machine might need, or should we be considering an additional semantic layer for machines at all?

Let's come together to discuss the problem, the risks of both action and inaction, and the potential paths forwards.

Additional co-chair (if registered): @chrishtr

Goal(s):
To collectively explore whether semantic HTML and ARIA is sufficient for AI agents or if a new, machine-facing semantic layer is needed for a reliable agentic web.

Materials:

Export options

Personal Links

Please log in to export this event with all the information you have access to.

Public Links

The following links do not contain any sensitive information and can be shared publicly.

Feedback

Report feedback and issues on GitHub.